Seasons

charles - all species have sex instincts, my point was that in humanity who has something the animals don't which is love, the sexual freedom notion is leading to things like cheating, homosexuality, rape, broken hearts, etc.. and is rapidly destroying the core essence of a meaningful relationship - love.

And I still don't see how you want to discuss this without reference to morality.

I am discussing morality here, for we are humans, and unlike animals, we have a code of morality which in the right circcumstances can turn a natural thing like sex into something much greater, when this morality allows you to stick to the one you love. Animals do not do that.

If you want this to be a scientific discussion, first you'll have to argue that these so-called morals are not somehow already programmed into the genetic code. If they are, then humans are no different than animals. If they are not, then perhaps morality is a meaningful term.

Since 'morals' vary so greatly between cultures, I'm inclined to think they are not genetic. Perhaps the first step to making it a meaningful term is to identify those 'morals' that most or all societies share. The only one that comes to mind is The Golden Rule.

It is obvious that morality is not genetic, forif it was, only people with mutations would be able to be immoral, and everyone has done immoral things within their lifetimes. when people are capable of adhering to certain morals not because of fear of god or punishment, but because they think it's the right thing - that is meaningful.

But who decides what is right and what is wrong? Doing the right thing in one culture might violate the worst taboo of another.

One could make the argument that people only do 'the right thing' out of fear of repercussions from their own culture. There are obvious exceptions. The Civil Rights movement was 'doing the right thing' in violation of many of the established norms of the time. But for most people, doing 'the right thing' means obeying the norms of society because to do otherwise would involve repercussions.

I'd comment, but I was asked not to at the beginning of the discussion.

What repercussions do you fear if you do not acquiesce to this request?

None, I suppose. But I think if I wait long enough all restrictions will be lifted. Already it appears that morality can enter into the discussion -- just not religion.

colonel, I think it's possible to have both liberty and morals. Other people's morals may not be the same as yours, but it's oversimplifying things to say that they have no morals.

As for the tone of your questioning: you make it sound as if anyone having sex outside of marriage is incapable of having a meaningful relationship. Is that the idea you were trying to convey?

As for our purpose: shall we all go get married as quickly as possible and start popping out as many babies as we can? I don't think that is the meaning of MY life.

*shrugs* I think colonel is assuming a moral position implies there is a definite 'right' or 'wrong' that applies to everyone, regardless of culture or circumstance. Though first he attacks the idea as being against liberty, then embraces it as producing more meaningful relationships.